Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading  Processing Request

Unpacking the Theory Behind One Health Food Safety Programs : A Vietnam Case Study

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
  • Additional Information
    • Publication Information:
      Uppsala universitet, Global hälsa - implementering och hållbarhet
      Univ Guelph, Dept Populat Med, Guelph, ON, Canada.
      Vietnam Natl Univ Agr, Hanoi, Vietnam.
      Hanoi Univ Publ Hlth, Ctr Publ Hlth & Ecosyst Res, Hanoi, Vietnam.
      Int Livestock Res Inst, Nairobi, Kenya.
      Univ Sydney, Sch Vet Sci, Darlington, NSW, Australia.
      Natl Inst Anim Sci, Hanoi, Vietnam.
      Univ Greenwich, Nat Resources Inst, London, England.
    • Publication Date:
      2021
    • Collection:
      Uppsala University: Publications (DiVA)
    • Abstract:
      Many One Health programs are inherently complex, characterized by multiple perspectives from multiple sectors, delivery across various scales, and a focus on complex problems at the convergence of people, animals, and the environment. This complexity makes them difficult to conceptualize, requiring frameworks to organize the different program components. Evaluation frameworks that unpack the sequence of events linking program activities to outcomes (e.g., Theory of Change) and track outcomes (e.g., Outcome Mapping) show promise in supporting the development of One Health programs. While widely used in international development and health contexts, there has been little reflection on the use of Theory of Change and Outcome Mapping within One Health efforts. This paper reflects on the process of applying these frameworks to conceptualize a One Health food safety program in Vietnam. We find Theory of Change fostered the characterization of a change pathway toward safer pork, while Outcome Mapping kept us informed of where along the change pathway we were. One Health programs considering evaluation frameworks should adopt elements that make sense to them, be intentional about co-designing the evaluation, and view evaluation as a process, not a product.
    • File Description:
      application/pdf
    • Relation:
      Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2021, 8; PMID 34926640; ISI:000730152200001
    • Accession Number:
      10.3389/fvets.2021.763410
    • Online Access:
      http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-463551
      https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.763410
    • Rights:
      info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
    • Accession Number:
      edsbas.4A2175E3